Because back then there wasn’t the same means to keep prisoners securely locked up for life as there is now. No pope has ever claimed that the DP is intrinsically evil, only that it is no longer necessary and thus shouldn’t be used.In all this long string of quotes from you and Jon S it is instructive to note that there is nothing earlier than from the last half of the 20th century. It is as if the church had never said anything on the issue prior to JPII, or that nothing said by the previous 263 popes, the saints, the Fathers and Doctors of the church is meaningful. You cannot claim to know what the “Catholic position on the death penalty is” unless you know what she has actually taught.
Ender
No one is saying that you can’t disagree with the Popes on a moral issue. Just that it may not be prudent to publicly try to persuade other Catholics to disagree along with you.As Pope Benedict, when Ratzinger
Pope Benedict established any Catholic can disagree with the Church’s prudential judgement and remain a Catholic in good standing, a position which can only occur if the Church recognizes that there are credible differences with regard to biblical, theological, traditional, philosophical, rational and/or factual issues, which She does.
I don’t understand what you’re saying. I think murderers should be locked up for life.You have misinterpreted my comments. The assertion has been made that incarceration is sufficient to protect society. "Today, in fact, given the means at the State’s disposal to effectively repress crime…"
I have asked someone to explain what this means by defining what constitutes the effective repression of crime (and especially of murder). If society is protected, as is alleged, from repeat murders then how many repeat murders should we expect to see? One a decade? One a year? A hundred a year? If you cannot even define what the term “effective repression” means it is impossible to claim that you have achieved it.
In the context of our discussion, I meant that if life in prison for murderers is necessary to keep society safe, then life in prison is justified. If the DP is necessary to keep it safe, then the DP is justified.No, this cannot be. Whatever is licit is whatever is just, not whatever is necessary.
I believe someone who was convicted of 1st degree murder should get LWOP, yes. I don’t know what their position is on it, but as far as I know they have never spoken out against it.Is it your position then that LWOP should be the default sentence in murder cases and that the last three popes would support this?
Ender
No.It was a yes or no question. So, I still need a simple clarification… is this a yes or a no? (it sounds like a yes but I just want to make it perfectly clear)
Right, and I responded asking you to confirm that the answer is YES. Is the answer yes?answered in #215
I want him to say it straight up.His answer is our Popes, Bishops, Entire Magesterium, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Second Vatican Council, the USCCB, and a number of other authoritative shepherds are
IN ERROR
As such I must sadly say…heresy
Sorry, I only read it once.No one is saying that you can’t disagree with the Popes on a moral issue. Just that it may not be prudent to publicly try to persuade other Catholics to disagree along with you.
Jon S has repeatedly explained this to you.
I don’t understand all this. You answered NO to the question ''are you saying that Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict, and Pope Francis are all going against church teaching by believing that the death penalty is no longer necessary to keep society safe and thus being against it?" … So why the need to post all this other stuff as though the real answer was actually YES?No.
The errors are factual, within both EV and CCC, as detailed, by me, a canon lawyer and a Catholic scholar, in Rome and, more, as detailed.
In addition, from a theology standpoint, it is still a mystery how an eternal teaching, representing paramount obedience to a Commandment, to use execution, can be undercut by a (wrongly evaluated) utilitarian concern of “defense of society”, making the new teaching a near paramount obedience NOT to use the sanction.
A true mystery… Those few shown here.
The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html
Saint (& Pope) Pius V, “The just use of (executions), far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment which prohibits murder.” “The Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent” (1566).
Pope Pius XII: “When it is a question of the execution of a man condemned to death it is then reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned of the benefit of life, in expiation of his fault, when already, by his fault, he has dispossessed himself of the right to live.” 9/14/52.
and voluminous others, as previously presented.
You have said that the question of the use of capital punishment is prudential. I have said it is prudential. I have also provided two citations showing that disagreement with prudential judgments is valid. How then can valid disagreement with a prudential opinion in this case be objectionable?That’s not what’s happening here.
Objecting to a specific comment in the catechism by citing the opinions of others whose opinions are more significant than mine can hardly be wrong. Suggesting that I cannot legitimately even raise an objection is hardly a suggestion that my objection is incorrect.* To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating)But trying to convince Catholics the bishops are wrong or the catechism is poorly written is just wrong.
Why are you trying so hard to get the rest of us to be pro death penalty?Sorry, I only read it once.
Mom, I am presenting fact based positions, very clearly, with verifiable sources, and with, additional, support from Catholic scholars and with no rebuttal of any of those facts.
That’s it.
So true.SNIP
If I believe an execution best serves the common good and you believe the opposite, one of us is wrong but neither of us has acted unjustly. Errors are not sins.
Ender
It’s not a valid disagreement. You say there are flaws and errors in the Church teaching of the faithful regarding her position on the civil use of the death penalty in human justice. If you are saying that you believe that the death penalty is necessary because it more suitably serves the common good within America today… you’re ok to have that opinion despite it being obviously wrong. If you are saying that the Churchs position on the death penalty is contradicting the doctrine on this issue for 2000 years… your are in error and need deeper catechesis.You have said that the question of the use of capital punishment is prudential. I have said it is prudential. I have also provided two citations showing that disagreement with prudential judgments is valid. How then can valid disagreement with a prudential opinion in this case be objectionable?
Great post!It’s not a valid disagreement. You say there are flaws and errors in the Church teaching of the faithful regarding her position on the civil use of the death penalty in human justice. If you are saying that you believe that the death penalty is necessary because it more suitably serves the common good within America today… you’re ok to have that opinion despite it being obviously wrong. If you are saying that the Churchs position on the death penalty is contradicting the doctrine on this issue for 2000 years… your are in error and need deeper catechesis.
The person or States decision on whether to use fatal force in self defense, to wage war in the interests of the common good or to use the death penalty in the interests of the common good is a judgement from prudence. The Church has always defended those last resorts as morally licit and in service to the commandment ‘thou shalt not kill’. They are not exceptions to the commandment… they are in *service to *the commandment.
If there is the possibility of defending self or others with non lethal means… we are absolutely obliged by the commandment… to choose that option. There is NO divine positive command binding us to kill offenders by order of God. The allowance is made for as a last resort, but the first obligation of all people is to preserve and respect the lives of all human beings.
The Church continues to stress and stress that the death penalty is morally licit when it is used justly but when the people of the world and the culture of society is resisting and trying to expel the practice from their midst out of a sense of the injustice… that it is no longer morally licit. This is a good and natural movement arising from fundamental human law.
That is what the Church is saying now and in perfect accord with the position of the Church throughout history. Some people have mistaken the death penalty as a divine command that is an exception to the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’. It was never an exception to the commandment. The very first Catechisms dealt with it within the context of ‘Thou shalt not kill’. *That *commandment obliges every man, woman and child at all times and in every way.
There is no contradiction now or then. The Church speaks the truth of the Gospel and the Tradition and as Card. Dulles says…
"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.
For the symbolism to be authentic, the society must believe in the existence of a transcendent order of justice, which the State has an obligation to protect. This has been true in the past, but in our day the State is generally viewed simply as an instrument of the will of the governed. In this modern perspective, the death penalty expresses not the divine judgment on objective evil but rather the collective anger of the group. The retributive goal of punishment is misconstrued as a self-assertive act of vengeance."
The death penalty is being applied illicitly under these conditions and must be abolished. That is the position of the Catholic Church in keeping with the Tradition and the Gospels.
Quote the section you are addressing but I don’t think it’s any secret that the massive presence of guns in the suburbs of America is responsible for huge massacres of innocents year after year. Don’t you think the rest of the world gets your news? Most countries severely restrict private gun use for the very reason of the number of innocents killed.The degree of force, against the unjust aggressor, needs to be considered and proportional and that, knowingly, using too much force is unlawful or illegitimate and sinful.
This with the acknowledgement that we will make some errors in this regard, unknowingly, in the heat of the moment or with criminal sanctions, and that if we err, we need to err on the side of greater protection of innocent lives, meaning an error in degree must be that which better protects the innocents and society from unjust aggressors, not the degree of error that is more likely to allow unjust aggressors to harm more innocents, additionally, as with 2267.
See defense with a gun within:
“Capital Punishment and the Law”, Ave Maria Law Review, 2007 (30 pp), by Kevin L. Flannery S.J., Consultor of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (since 2002) and Ordinary Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University (Rome); and Mary Ann Remick Senior Visiting Fellow at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics andCulture (University of Notre Dame)
legacy.avemarialaw.edu/lr/assets/articles/V5i2.flannery.copyright.pdf
As I’ve said it’s fine for someone to hold that opinion, even share it when asked. But if Catholic Answers existed for the purposes of trying to abolish the death penalty and they discredited, popes, bishops and church councils to do so I would say they should be abolished.You have said that the question of the use of capital punishment is prudential. I have said it is prudential. I have also provided two citations showing that disagreement with prudential judgments is valid. How then can valid disagreement with a prudential opinion in this case be objectionable?
Objecting to a specific comment in the catechism by citing the opinions of others whose opinions are more significant than mine can hardly be wrong. Suggesting that I cannot legitimately even raise an objection is hardly a suggestion that my objection is incorrect.* To me it {Dunnigan’s article} demonstrates that the “Catechism” has not dealt with the death penalty in a sufficiently full way. It has limited itself to just one aspect, public safety, while not even discussing the other traditional purposes of punishment. Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating)
Should Catholic Answers be closed because the man who founded it has said the same thing I’ve been saying?
Ender
Not unless they involve negligence.if the error arise from ignorance of some circumstance, and without any negligence, so that it cause the act to be involuntary, then that error of reason or conscience excuses the will, that abides by that erring reason, from being evil. (Aquinas ST I-II 19,6 2-2)I now think you are mixed up. Errors are unjust.
I feel quite capable in pointing out errors and implications in various arguments, like the ones you make here. For example, if capital punishment is cruel as you allege, how is it that the church allows it even theoretically? What you are arguing is that the church calls capital punishment cruel but then says that sometimes cruelty is acceptable. Why would I not doubt that argument?Why you feel that you are capable of advocating positions the church has deemed “cruel and unnecessary” in her prudential judgement is beyond comprehension.
Do you have any facts to support this assertion, because it doesn’t seem accurate to me? Lifetime imprisonment has existed for centuries and I see no reason to believe that even our supermax prisons were as effective at completely cutting off all connection with the outside as the dungeons, mines, and galleys of old. The Romans seemed quite adept at managing huge numbers of prisoners and slaves for lifetimes.Because back then there wasn’t the same means to keep prisoners securely locked up for life as there is now. No pope has ever claimed that the DP is intrinsically evil, only that it is no longer necessary and thus shouldn’t be used.
We know that prisoners sentenced to life terms have escaped and killed again, killed someone within prison, and arranged others on the outside to kill for them. Given that, what level of killing would it take before you would admit that society is not safe even from prisoners sentenced to LWOP?In the context of our discussion, I meant that if life in prison for murderers is necessary to keep society safe, then life in prison is justified. If the DP is necessary to keep it safe, then the DP is justified.
Yeah actually I did read quotes that were supposedly attributed to these people, but the few that I DID check out were not cited with references. I really did not feel up to vetting all the posts to see if they were properly attributed. If that blog had been a thesis it would have gotten an “F” for poor citation. So much for ignorance.That Dudley Sharp died in 1987.
Evidently, you didn’t read the hundreds of quotes from Catholic Popes, Saints, Doctors of the Church, the Magisterium and prior CCC detailing death penalty support for over 2000 years, as opposed to the newest teaching, which had to be amended, repeatedly, into the CCC, within the past 17 years.
Evidently, you didn’t read any of the material, or you would have been able to answer your own questions, which were, fully, answered within the provided link.
Willful ignorance is no help within any discussion.
Just a few of what was presented.
The Death Penalty: Mercy, Expiation, Redemption & Salvation
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-death-penalty-mercy-expiation.html
Jesus and the Death Penalty
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesus-and-death-penalty.html
The Death Penalty: Do Innocents Matter?
prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-death-penalty-do-innocents-matter.html